| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| source |
Posted - 13 Dec 2004 : 05:27:37
(First off the law created by governments of men simply do not apply to men and women of declared faith. The only protection provided for by the governments of men in the commonwealth and those countries displaying a Christian Bible in their court rooms is that Bible and faith in it. The Queen acts as defender of the faith. The Bible's first command is to not bow to false Gods'. Other faiths may not have the power of that Bible logged in with standing as supreme law to effect the extraction from the influence of mans law upon them. This is only an offer and warning. You can follow the ways of men if you wish or realise your true freedom via this process offered. The administrator altered my subject title without asking me which does not seem to be ecclesia based in my grasp of Biblical law which lead's me to believe the name of this site is misleading. I have changed it from what was originally there and from what the administrator did without my permission. It was not offensive but true . If truth is offensive then it is lie that is offended not truth.
Questions the adminstrator as to this act of non eccelsiatical performance as it speaks to error!)
Hello Brethren ,Glory to Jah in salutations is not enough,,,praise Jah, banging on keyboards is short of the mark,, in the spirit of the gift of life we are graced with the knowledge of our savior not cloaking ourselves by his word but rather baring our souls to the world in his name.. It is only by our duty in works that we can warn the darkness of the coming light...(Ezekiel 33:6)It is our birthright to demand our value of life that was stolen from us.(Leviticus 6:2) We have the technology! We have "The" Law. We have the proof, it appears we have the faith, now all that is missing is the works.....As the old saying goes "let’s give em the works"
This is a Canadian government website.. I ,with God's spirit prevailing, privately convinced the webmaster to post the truth..
I even did it on the phone!!
I have, with God's aid, got the treasury department of Canada served in our Lords name and done privately as well..They ageed with me and now are trying to make a law to deal with our Church
yah gotta laugh and cry to be in between...
http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/pdp-hrp/canada/guide/application_e.cfm
weve all heard the laws of congress or legislatures does not apply to us so heres the proof coming from them!!!
What I am going to show you here in this thread is how to in honor show the confused and unaware officials that their law doesn’t apply to us and when we do that it will be by private registered mail to a non commercial man or woman.
By doing this you eliminate the corporations cloak of deceit. You bring them into private agreement with you so they have no recourse but to realize that if they go back to work and continue to intimidate you that they become subject to their own criminal law and they have no defense..
Mind you the son of man never used their law as to make use of a thing implies a benefit and if you derive a benefit from one of the code's of mans laws you not only recognize it's authority but you seek to come out ahead by using it thereby contracting yourself to it's jurisdiction over you. Just like getting a ticket, a bill of exchange, and showing up at the invited time. If you show up and your there you are automatically assumed to be consenting to the jurisdiction and assumed to be a debtor by the commercial collector for the world bank, being the court, an agent of the receiver general.
You do have the opportunity to abate the assumed issue though... abatement is something some I'm sure are familiar with others not... It means your words bring them into awareness that what you intend to bring to court will destroy their argument hands down.You also have a duty to warn them of the hole in their own codes that they will fall into if they intimidate you!!!
This is a letter early in my awakening and will show you not only a popular misconception about what is defined as illegal and how to abate a process.... But that you can!
As a result of these letters the prosecution immediately stayed all charges and threatened me with contempt if I showed up!
To: Crown Counsel Mr. Von Myers November 14 2000 A.D.
St Albert Court( Alberta Canada)
Fax:780- 459-5088 Constitutional Challenge notice
From: Minister of God Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Tel/Fax:780-967-3915
Re: Charges of Possession of a controlled herb created by God substance ie. Religious sacramental marijuana a non criminal civil violation(Queen vs. Hauser BC SCR.1979)
You are in violation of your Supreme law of Canada in preamble and section 32 invoking the application of the charter law upon you, not me, as I am a registered Minister of God and am following the Biblical theistic dictate and gift of Genesis 1:29 and Deuteronomy Chapter 4:1-2; Chapter 7:-;Chapter 8-;Chapter9-;Chapter10;11;12;13;14;Etc.
This is God’s book of laws, laws that apply to me as the preamble so subliminally puts. If the Queen with the advise of the Lords Spiritual says God is Supreme and the rule of law, then you, or any other Crown allegiant, that says mans rule code and regulations take precedent over Gods rule are in breach of their oath of allegiance to the Defender of the faith acting in a seditious manner contrary to the royal style as clearly defined in the Queens act the statute of Westminster that applies to you as agent and representative of the Crown, directly, and making a blasphemic statement.
I as a minister of a registered Church disavow any Corporate Status and that any bonafide contract exists between myself and the Crown or the Government of Canada. I am a Creation of God and Challenge you and all the Justice ministers of Canada constitutionally to prove otherwise or that you have authority direct from God that says you have jurisdiction over me or that you can take away God’s gift, or tell me how to worship God, when God’s rule of law has not been violated.
The Defender of the faith as Gods representative acknowledges the Supremacy of God. I ask you as the representative of the Defender of the faith does you recognize God as supreme? Do you recognize Gods scriptural word as the rule of law? Do you know what Blasphemy is?
Would you as the Crowns counsel come before another Crown allegiant, a judge, encouraging and advocating Blasphemy? Blasphemy is stating that mans law is precedential and supercedent to Gods law. Do you know the definition of sedition and treason? These are some of the issues that I intend to challenge with regards to jurisdiction.
Let us be reasonable, Marijuana is Gods gift to man. (Romans 11:29)
It has never been proven that anyone is damaged by using it. The Australian Government’s two year study exposed by Foip at the request of the CBC said that drivers that use Marijuana are actually better drivers than sober drivers. They shelved that study for obvious reasons. No one has ever made a formal complaint or filed an information they were harmed by the use of marijuana. I ask you what is the purpose of an unconstitutional law? The courts have told the Federal Justice minister that this archaic repressive dictate has no force or affect and to revise the law to apply constitutionally.
I have heard, through, albeit rumors from more than one source, that some Crown prosecutors use Cocaine. Will you submit to a urinalysis? Will the possible use of this drug influence your ability to properly represent the Crown in a matter of theistic jurisdiction? These questions have no intent to defame you or discredit you anymore than a man hiring a worker that he has heard is an alcoholic. He has the right to ask and you have the right to reply in denial or in tacit consent say nothing and admit the fact by failure to rebut. Will you deny or fail to issue recognition of the Supremacy of God and will this denial or failure on your part influence the record and your jurisdiction so as to make you just a man with some words of no force or effect? Can an atheist or a Man or woman of contrary religion participate in the religious prosecution and adjudication of a Christian using one of God’s gifts as his right and religious practice and belief? Would this represent a conflict of interest if so addressed as a concern? Can an allegiant to the defender of the faith and servant of the Crown deny the supremacy of God when asked to do so? How can God reign as supreme and his rule of law if that is possible? Can a man dictate that God’s gifts are illegal without committing blasphemy? Can you prove that God gave you or anyone else permission to take away his gift to his creations of men and women? Did the King draft the statute of Westminster to protect the Royal style in particle? Is being head of the Church of England part of the Royal style? For how many centuries?
Please do not dismiss this case or withdraw the charges. I intend to set the record straight with these questions and if you attempt to thwart my efforts this is called obstruction of Justice by you! And I will press forward with an information against you! Remember your allegiance and ask yourself what the Queen would say. If you fumble this case she will not be amused!
You are hereby ordered and relinquished of permission, as you never had it, to use my name in any other form than what appears above. I will not answer to any other name and will press for Fraud Charges if you violate my dictate and my unalienable right to my name. The Federal Treasury board, that has authority over you, has a document called the "Canadian Style" You may be interested to note that it is authoritative over all federal departments as a format for communication in all forms and is respected internationally as an authority for grammar and punctuation. It clearly says you shall use upper lower case for a name inclusive of indicated punctuation and that an all capital name is reserved for a department of defense operation as in SILENT DEFENDER. There are other federal documents that state that a corporate name will be printed in all capitals. Can you prove I am a Corporation when I state I am God Allegiant? Is there a signature on a valid contract that says I am a corporation? Are you aware Judge Spevakow violated 606 of his Criminal code when he himself entered the not guilty plea for me rather than directing the Clerk of the court to do so. This is supported by the transcript record.
Will you deliver, post haste, a full-unedited bill of particulars according to your recognized case of Stinchcombe? This has never happened, as the records of the other attending officers were not made available to me.
CC: Reverend’s Walter Tucker and Michael Baldasaro of The Assembly of the Universe The Honourable Anne Mclellan M.P. Minister of Justice, Defender of the faith
The Solicitor General of Canada Lawrence MacAuly, Defender of the faith
Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada Adrianne Clarkson, Defender of the faith Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Defender of the faith.
The Honourable Dave Hancock Justice Minister Defender of the faith
Sincerely in Christian allegiance and love of all God’s creation,
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger 1-780-967-3915
Subject: God The Queen,the servant and Holy smoke!
Dear Allan Rock Dec1.2000A.D.
Did you swear an oath of allegiance to her majesty the Queen? Will you step in yourself soon, as the judge and counsel for the Crown could well be charged with treason by their procession with out jurisdiction.
You have charged a minister of God with possession of a sacramental herb a gift of God.
That act is not only blasphemic in proportions but also unlawful and discriminatory on religious grounds.
Would you dare tell me how to worship God?
Will you acknowledge your error?
Will you fail to acknowledge the Supremacy of God when asked as an allegiant to her majesty the Queen defender of the faith? Will you violate your oath to be allegiant to the defender of the faith head of the Church of England? Do you deny God as Supreme? Will I recognize the jurisdiction of anyone that is not allegiant to God via the Queen? Can I be forced to without it being an act of treason?
Would you commit blasphemy in stating that one of Gods gifts to man is illegal?Genesis 1:29
Would you commit further blasphemy as a servant of God via her majesty in superseding and precedenting mans law to Gods and saying mans law is superior and mandatory? Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 12:32
Would you, as a servant of her majesty, dare challenge the Royal Style and the Head of the Church of England, as the Queens father insisted not happen in 1931, in the Statute of Westminster?
Would you call God a liar and commit further blasphemy?
Would you commit treason in overthrowing her majesty's Government that was given in Gods consent to her majesty? Romans13. Introduction Canadian Constitution.
Would you compel me to worship and partake in your godless laws? Romans 16:17-20
Have I given anyone consent to proceed against me in fraud or change my name in the all capital fiction of attached to an AKA.?
Has there ever been valid bonifide proof that the holy anointing oil of the old testament for the anointing of Kings and priests contained kanehbosm(Hebrew for cannabis)Sweet smelling cane Exodus 30:23 New King James Version Her Majesty's Bible.
Was Jesus the anointed one? The Holy oil was used to anoint Kings!
Is cannabis seed the most perfect food of God's creational gift to man?
Is the oil of the seed the most perfect lubricant for engines and body?
Doe the fibre make the most perfect clothing and textiles?
Will the use of this plant for building products and paper save our forests the lungs of the planet?
Did Henry Ford plan to build and run his cars with the products of this plant?
Did Randolph Hearst, Dupont Chemicals, the Cotton industry the petroleum industry, the metal industry, the pharmaceutical industry;the medical industry;The rubber industry,The lumber industry and the criminal justice system industry have anything to gain by lobbying Congress in 1936 to institute the illegality of this sacred chosen plant of God that Mr. Ford wished to utilize?
Can you produce a damaged party or witness of such damage?
Did Hitler use this plant in his war machine because of it's superior nature. Is it's fibre as strong as steel. Is its medicinal quality well established historically? Does the Canadian judicial system make money out of keeping it illegal? Are you participating in this religious and unconstitutional discrimination and persecution?
From Minister of God Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
I hope you realize the brevity and precarious position this puts you in. You can come out of this as sweet smelling cane or as Hemlock. You must decide if you bear allegiance to God through her Majesty or violate your oath to not only God but to uphold his law. The constitution of Canada you swore to enforce and uphold is Precedentially and absolutely Gods law as supreme as the preamble so aptly puts. Remember to bite your tongue when you habitually wish to apply mans law against me the man creation of God. Will you respect this knowledge ? Hosea 4:6
In love of Christ and on Guard of the faith eternal.
Your servant in the Lord
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Sock it to them bretheren, in defence of the faith Love and blessings, your servant of the Lord faithfull and discreet slave
Brother Edward
P.S. I will speak for all who ask to whereever. I only charge for Meals, accommodation and transportation in advance. This allows me to be there for you as I am unemployed in the secular field. 1-780-967-3915
Edward-Jay
Edward-Jay-Robin: Belanger
Blessings and please redistribute |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Manuel |
Posted - 28 Aug 2005 : 16:23:37
Let's see now... there's white power, black power, women power, indian power, etc... heck, there's even 'money' power!
And there's this CLICK HERE
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 28 Aug 2005 : 11:57:30
Indeed worthy questions and I believe a few answers are found in Robert Graves'/Joshua Podro's The Nazarene Gospel Restored.
The question I was leading to is much simpler. Over the years I have seen OneIsraelite adhere to a strict White Israel identity/idealism that is accompanied by a perfectionism quite contrary to what you just wrote Batkol. That editors and yes, even 1611 early Illuminatti/Mason edited and encrypted many items into the Holy Bible, and the New Covenant.
Here is the question; Would OneIsraelite be adhering to this perfectionist doctrine, that one becomes a Taxpayer and removes or remands from kingdom coverture when paying a simple sales tax, if he had the Name of God and the Messiah pronounced correctly?
With your question Batkol, I think it most easily explained by the Book of Acts. Paul plead Roman municipal citizenship (early combinatorial mathematics - METRO organization/positive law jural society). Notice he plead "Tarsus", not "Cilicia". Prior to buying that Roman citizenship paper (in Cyprus; yes, he lied to James about why he arrived with so little alms for the Ebionite 'widows') Paul made two or three campaigns through the heart of Asia Minor (Turkey) where these Horus myths still manifested in pagan ritual. Thus he simply conformed the survival of Yehoshua H'Natzrith with the Revival/renewal and later editors even incorporated the Virgin Birth/renewal myths into rumors that Jesus still lived. [Moving the Birth of Christ to the Winter Solstice and Roman Saturnalia gives us a pretty strong clue.]
The pagans of Asia Minor ate it right up like honey.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 28 Aug 2005 : 08:50:41
Here is what I find curious about replacing the name in the NT. Many claim that "The Name" was removed by conspiracy and in it's place Theos was added. If that's the case then how can anything in the book be trusted at all? Why would these alleged conspirators stop at just "The Name" if this claim is to be taken seriously? Should not one also consider the older pagan myths of, say, Horus who, over one thousand years before the advent of the New Testament, had a miraculous birth that was heralded by a star in the east; who was baptized by someone who was later decapitated; who had twelve followers; who walked on water, cast out demons, and healed the sick; who was transfigured on a mountain; who was crucified between two thieves, buried in a tomb, and resurrected; and who was known as the KRST or "anointed one," as well as the "good shepherd," "the lamb of God," "the bread of life," "the son of man," "the Word," and the "fisher."
If Christ was the Messiah of the Old Testament (which I do not believe he was)why do we see him clothed in a pagan myth? How can one assert that YHWH is the correct name for God in the NT, yet not address the sheer volumes of paganism in the same book.
Worthy questions, no?
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 28 Aug 2005 : 06:12:19
OneIsraelite said:
quote:
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of Yahuwah, they are the Children of Yahuwah. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Yahuwah: And if children, then heirs; heirs of Yahuwah, and joint-heirs with the Messiah; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also exalted together. (emphasis added)
And I submit that OneIsraelite's writing is incoherent with the Name and Word of God. He consistently and intentionally misquotes the Holy Bible. I am not personally subscribed to Sacred Name doctrine but do believe there is certain power to prayers. There is a definite aspect to physics and metaphysics that follows rules and laws. Also having invested $50 in a comprehensive work by Gerard Gerteoux it is clear that OneIsraelite is skewed by both his mispronunciation and especially his self-perceived and self-justified misquoting of the Holy Bible here and other places on the Internet.
Regards,
David Merrill.
P.S. Reading further into Gerard Gertoux's book:
quote:
Page 141.
Thus the current form YeHoWaH, which one finds in Jewish Bibles, is the product of a long history. What is more this complex process took place without the knowledge of the protagonists. One can suppose that if God really attaches importance to his name, all these concidences were not necessarily accidental. In the greatest of paradoxes, the system of the querel kethib which was supposed to protect God's name really did protect it, except for this 'amusing' detail; the Name was coded by its own vowels, which has to be the epitome of coding. Consequently, in the debates with those that laugh at the 'naive' reading Yehowah, perhaps the naives are not the ones we might think.
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 28 Aug 2005 : 04:47:18
Greetings and salutations brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Yahuwah...
They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of Yahuwah...
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of Yahuwah, they are the Children of Yahuwah. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Yahuwah: And if children, then heirs; heirs of Yahuwah, and joint-heirs with the Messiah; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also exalted together.
G4789
sugkleronomos
Thayer Definition:
1) a fellow heir, a joint heir
2) one who obtains something assigned to himself with others, a joint participant
And, "Cheers" to you also, brother Steven!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 12:52:56
Greetings on a fine day!
quote:
brother Robert said: For the record, we do not consent to entering into an agreement or compact (covenant) to be controlled by, or to be under the law of, any government other than the commonwealth of Yisra’el, alternately known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven.
When one wilfully concents to enter into COMMERCE with a licensed AGENT of the STATE (VENDOR), then they do put themselves into a realm GOVERNED by STATUTE, so GOVT STATUTES do apply to the Ecclesia when engaging in COMMERCE. They also take on the STATUS, within the transaction, as a TAXPAYER as the term is defined after the semi-colon in the Black's Law and completely in the definition of TAXPAYER in 26 U.S.C. §1313 (b). This is not to say that one looses their Citizenship or membership to whatever they claim. This is in addition to the whatever Citizenship or membership they claim during their act of COMMERCE. It would be proper to look at the situation as taking on an extra set of obligations when entering into COMMERCE. Example: If a 'Boyscout' goes to the store and buys a pack of gum and pays the TAX the AGENT is licensed to collect and remit back to the STATE, it does not mean that the boy looses his standing as a member of the 'Boyscouts'. In like kind, Paul did not loose his standing in the body of Christ because he was a ROMAN CITIZEN (complete with all of the juicy benefits like "no whippings", etc.) Also Paul did not loose his standing in the body of Christ because he entered a plea in a ROMAN COURT. I would also argue that Paul did not break the first commandment by his ROMAN CITIZENSHIP or by entering into the COURT to plea his case. It is worth nothing that the New Testament says that 'flesh cannot enter into the Kingdom of God'. Exploring the meaning of that phrase deserves it's own thread.
Cheers!
Steve
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 27 Aug 2005 : 11:16:01
Greetings and salutations, brothers and sisters,
Peace be unto the house.
Happy Sevening Day to all our fellowcitizens of the commonwealth of Yisra’el.
It is as simple as this:
The state (the people) is (are) said to be semi-sovereign only, and not sovereign, when in any respect or respects it is (they are) liable to be controlled by a paramount government.…
But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted, who did put all things under him. …i.e. semi-sovereign
Paramount. …the highest rank or nature. (Ibid.)
For us, there is but one paramount government.
For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder There is no end to the increase of His government and of peace on the throne of David, and on His kingdom, to order it, and to sustain it with justice and with righteousness, from now and forever. The zeal of Yahuwah of Hosts will do this.
…No foreign power or law can have control except by convention. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 971
Convention. An agreement or compact (Ibid.)
For the record, we do not consent to entering into an agreement or compact (covenant) to be controlled by, or to be under the law of, any government other than the commonwealth of Yisra’el, alternately known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of heaven.
All things Lawful are mine, but all things are not advantageous to me; on the other hand, I will not be brought under the power of anyone.
We may temporarily choose to pay kosmokrator’s use tax rather than choosing to resist it at this time, or refusing to buy its goods altogether, without losing our semi-sovereignty.
Our King, and thus we his fellowcitizens whom He has made semi-sovereigns, have the power of choice. We choose to pay it because it seems right to pay for the use of these goods and services, and by so choosing, consent to nothing more.
For anyone to go beyond this extremely limited consent and say it is more, he, she, it or they are acting in the capacity of unlawful tyrants. There is but one Lawful Tyrant and we are His Peculiar People; we are His Citizens and no one else’s!!
Tyrant, n. [L. tyrannus; Gr. ... The Welsh has teyrn, a king or sovereign, which Owen says is compounded of te, [that spreads] and gyrn, imperious, supreme, from gyr, a driving. The Gaelic has tiarna and tighearna, a lord, prince or ruler, from tigh, a house; indicating that the word originally signified the master of a family merely, or the head of a clan. There is some uncertainty as to the real origin of the word. It signified originally merely a chief, king or prince.] – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
PECU'LIAR, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one's own property, from pecus, cattle.]
1. Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only.
4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others. (Ibid.)
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 16:15:42
Here is an excellent snip from the FL DOR called
Sales and Use Tax
Beginning Your Relationship with the Florida Department of Revenue
What new dealers should know about collecting, reporting, and remitting Florida sales and use tax.
http://www.myflorida.com/dor/businesses/start.html
Dealer Responsibilities
As a newly registered dealer to collect and remit Florida sales and use tax, you are an authorized agent in partnership with the State of Florida. The tax dollars you collect are funds belonging to the state. You serve as the trustee or custodian of these funds until you remit them. You should keep accurate records and maintain a separate accounting of these funds. Copies of your filed tax returns, canceled tax payment checks, and documentation to support all transactions must be kept for three years (five years for all records and returns for filing periods prior to July 1999).
(my note: this paragraph below shows that TAX is not required to be collected and remitted from all CONSUMERS)
Sales to Exempt Organizations
A Consumer's Certificate of Exemption (Form DR-14) is issued to qualifying nonprofit organizations and governmental bodies exempting them from paying tax on purchases for the organization's own use. Payment must be made by the organization named on the certificate. Personal payment that will be reimbursed by the organization cannot be accepted for tax-exempt purchases.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 09:30:14
quote:
There is no question that a buyer and seller may both be operating in commerce when a sale is made as in some of the examples that Steve has given but still it is the foundational law that governs jurisdiction, not administrative rules or statutes. Those rules only apply to those who are already bondservants subject to the jurisdiction that created the rules. The same can be said of the court cases cited. They are dealing with specific instances on how the rules apply to someone already subject to their jurisdiction. We must look deeper than legislative statutes and court opinions rendered in their equity to understand and see how one is brought under the states jurisdiction or how the Ecclesia (Church) may operate in the world but not of the world.
This is the sticking point to the whole topic. When one enters into the COMMERCIAL JURISDICTION, even to BUY the CONSUMER GOODS, then one has put themselves into a realm that is governed by STATUTE, for that TRANSACTION. We came to them, not them to us. The BUYER takes on the status of CONSUMER during that TRANSACTION. That TRANSACTION, an action in COMMERCE, has a few steps that extend beyond just the point of SALE between BUYER and SELLER. One obligation is that the VENDOR 'remits' the TAX it collected.
quote:
Of course we have all been taken in mostly because of our ignorance of law and covetousness but it was not and is not buying consumer products that made anyone liable for a sales tax.
Consider this: A sales tax is not due if no sale is made. This tells us that it is the BUYING/SELLING of the product that creates a liability for a sales tax.
quote:
Regardless of who takes on the liability a sales tax is on the sale of the consumer products. Where the buyer walks in off the street into a store and buys what is on display it is the seller who is obligated to come up with the sales tax.
This is symantics. There are two parts to the TRANSACTION when it comes to TAX. Collecting and remiting. You are speaking of the SELLER’S part when you point out his obligation to ‘remit’ the TAX that he is licensed to collect. The fact that a license is required by the VENDOR who acts as an AGENT to ‘collect’ the TAX at point of SALE tells us quite a bit. Collect from who? The CONSUMER. Remit what? Remit the TAX that was collected by the Licensed VENDOR/AGENT at the point of SALE to the GOVT. It is the VENDOR’S obligation to ‘collect and remit’ the TAX.
quote:
If you pay cash the seller usually does not even get a name so obviously a sales ticket standing alone does not create a contract or obligation on the buyer.
Nobody is arguing that the SALES TICKET is a contract. The contract was created when the BUYER/SELLER made the agreement concering price and payment. The act itself is the contract. The TICKET would just be evidence “of” a contract. The obligation on the BUYER is to fulfill the simple terms of the agreement struck between the CONSUMER and the VENDOR (who is also a licensed AGENT of the GOVT to ‘collect and remit’ TAXES at the point of SALE). Most of the time, as in the case of INGLES FOOD STORE for example, this agreement includes the payment of SALES TAX which the VENDOR is licensed to ‘collect and remit’. After the TAX is collected from the CONSUMER it is the obligation of the VENDOR to then ‘remit’ that TAX to the GOVT.
quote:
However the merchandise itself may be in commerce and subject to regulation or even confiscation.
Well, why is it in commerce? Because it was purchased during an ACT of COMMERCE just to make one point. When a CONSUMER engages in a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION they are stepping, if only momentarily, into a realm regulated by GOVT STATUTE. A bigger question then arises. Is it a breach of the first commandment to enter into the realm of COMMERCE with a FICTITIOUS ENTITY. That's what is happening when we buy CONSUMER ITEMS.
quote:
An example would be a buyer from a foreign country subject to a foreign jurisdiction. If this buyer attempts to take goods that are subject to regulation in one place of jurisdiction into another the goods might be subject to confiscation although the buyer himself may
have immunity to the statute because he is subject to another master.
The point I am making comes even before that example. The BUYER, whether he be from a foreign country, whether he be a dog catcher, or a priest or a moral sentient being, is engaging in a TRANSACTION which is regulated by GOVT STATUTE. Using the INGLES SUPERMARKET example. A man from Sweden comes in and buys a pack of cigarettes. To conform to the demands of the SELLER he is required to pay in FRN’s as well as pay the CONSUMER TAXES. If he does not comply with these demands by the SELLER then no GOODS were sold, the Swedish man did not become a CONSUMER during his visit to INGLES. Very simple. If, on the other hand, the Swedish man complied to the demands, then he would have become a CONSUMER for the sake of STATUTORY REGULATIONS.
What's more, to highlight the role of the CONSUMER in such a transaction, is this fact: As I have shown in previous posts the STATE has the power to collect the CONSUMER TAX from the CONSUMER if the AGENT does not 'remit' such a TAX to the GOVT. Why? Because the CONSUMER was party to an ACT of COMMERCE which is regulated by GOVT STATUTE.
quote:
Law as generally looked upon is the greatest deception tool on the face of this earth. It is mans greatest adversary, yet he continually makes it his god. People in general love to be under law because they want their neighbor under law. Liberty is a fearful thing without the peace of God and knowledge of His ways. So much so that people will readily trade their liberty for the security they imagine they have by attempting to keep evil from their door by binding their neighbor under codes and statutes.
The point in this example is that when one willfully enters into a COMMERCIAL ACT then that one is entering into a realm that is GOVERNED by STATUTE. One is not forced into this. There is no obligation for anyone to PURCHASE CONSUMER GOODS or to do BUISINESS with a VENDOR. It is wilfullness that brings us into the COMMERCIAL REALM. That’s the difference.
quote:
Assuming that the intent of the law is justice and for the protection of life and liberty, law does not operate on or against free men without their consent, otherwise men are only perpetual slaves of the one who holds in his hand the power to administer the law.
Good point. A CONSUMER gives consent each step of the way during a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION. One might also refuse giving consent to pay the CONSUMER TAX that the VENDOR is licensed as an AGENT to ‘collect and remit’. Perhaps the VENDOR will accept this offer. Maybe not.
Either way, the TRANSACTION is in COMMERCE and that is a realm that is GOVERNED by STATUTE.
quote:
On the other hand legal is created by law and operates on or against the thing or the man (the man himself is regulated-he is a servant under law). And legal becomes binding by law through consent in some form or making application or petition to the state for a benefit or privilege in a manner (oath or penalty of perjury) that indicates one understands what he is doing and by so doing makes himself a bondservant of the gods of that jurisdiction.
Again, you hit the nail on the head with the word ‘consent’. COMMERCE is all about consent. We get what we negotiate in COMMERCE. If we want to negotiate with the GAS STATION, INGLES, etc. we are free to do so. It does not mean they will accept our offer and it does not mean we will accept theirs either. The acceptance only comes once the terms have been set. Often times the terms are posted on the PRICE TAG and the VENDOR will not negotiate. In this case our willful acceptance of the terms is us paying what the VENDOR demands. Here is where the Bondservant, the dog catcher, the moral sentient being, all wilfully enter into a realm REGULATED by GOVT STATUTE.... if only for a moment.
Regards,
Steve
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 08:38:28
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Clarence:
Peace be unto the house.
“Christ preached a kingdom. He established a government. The ecclesia were those called to minister to the people and teach them how to come together in congregations under the liberty of that government. They did it once before in Rome. Can it be done again. I see even their laws recognize that it can, but the gold most likely will be tested in the fire. – Clarence
Well said brother Clarence!! The only point we may conflict on is, “He established a government”. Our studies indicate that Yahuwah established, i.e. founded the government and Yahushua was anointed/appointed second in command over it.
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me
We perceive that Yahuwah is called Father in the same vein that George [Washington] was called father; they are, at least by some, both considered to founders of nations.
Father G3962 1b1) forefathers, founders of a nation – Thayer’s Greek Definitions
We further perceive that upon full manifestation of the Kingdom known as the Kingdom of heaven, the Kingdom of God or the commonwealth of Yisra’el, Yahushua [JESUS] will then step down and at that time there will be only one Head, Yahuwah.
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that Yahuwâh be all in all.
Which of course, pretty much dispels the binity or trinity theories. Some of the confusion on this issue stems from Yahushua’s statement that if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
Imagine if you will the highest Embassador (Representative) of a nation being sent to a subordinate foreign nation within his Master’s dominion, he relays his Supreme Suveran’s [Sovereign’s] message to its government officials and they say something to the effect of, “We need to see the Supreme Suveran of this nation”. As the perfect Embassador doing the perfect will of his Supreme Suveran he might in truth respond with, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (the Founder, and therefore Supreme Suveran of my nation). In other words, he is responding with…
“…he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
3) God is called the Father…of all rational and intelligent beings…because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector – Thayer’s Greek Definitions
More appropriately “Yahuwah is called the Father of all rational and intelligent beings because he is their creator, preserver, guardian and protector”. And in a more general sense a god is called a father, or the reverse, a father can be called a god, because he is the creator, preserver, guardian and protector of a thing. The father of a thing is the founder/creator of a thing.
Synonyms for founder are: creator, originator, initiator, [and] organizer (MSWord 2000)
Hence, the creator, preserver, guardian and protector of a nation or country is its god or father, though we very, very seldom hear them referred to as gods any more because it is an absolute dead giveaway!
As we have stated elsewhere in this forum previously, it is our opinion, that this perception of what a god is, is positively vital to understanding The Scripture.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 19:43:56
Thanks everybody for some great thoughts on a topic that most have to deal with daily!
Steve |
| Surveyor |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 19:33:36
There is no question that a buyer and seller may both be operating in commerce when a sale is made as in some of the examples that Steve has given but still it is the foundational law that governs jurisdiction, not administrative rules or statutes. Those rules only apply to those who are already bondservants subject to the jurisdiction that created the rules. The same can be said of the court cases cited. They are dealing with specific instances on how the rules apply to someone already subject to their jurisdiction. We must look deeper than legislative statutes and court opinions rendered in their equity to understand and see how one is brought under the states jurisdiction or how the Ecclesia (Church) may operate in the world but not of the world.
Of course we have all been taken in mostly because of our ignorance of law and covetousness but it was not and is not buying consumer products that made anyone liable for a sales tax. Regardless of who takes on the liability a sales tax is on the sale of the consumer products. Where the buyer walks in off the street into a store and buys what is
on display it is the seller who is obligated to come up with the sales tax. If you pay cash the seller usually does not even get a name so obviously a sales ticket standing alone does not create a contract or obligation on the buyer.
However the merchandise itself may be in commerce and subject to regulation or even confiscation.
An example would be a buyer from a foreign country subject to a foreign jurisdiction. If this buyer attempts to take goods that are subject to regulation in one place of jurisdiction into another the goods might be subject to confiscation although the buyer himself may
have immunity to the statute because he is subject to another master.
Law as generally looked upon is the greatest deception tool on the face of this earth. It is mans greatest adversary, yet he continually makes it his god. People in general love to be under law because they want their neighbor under law. Liberty is a fearful thing without
the peace of God and knowledge of His ways. So much so that people will readily trade their liberty for the security they imagine they have by attempting to keep evil from their door by binding their neighbor under codes and statutes.
Assuming that the intent of the law is justice and for the protection of life and liberty, law does not operate on or against free men without their consent, otherwise men are only perpetual slaves of the one who holds in his hand the power to administer the law.
A righteous man is not under law, but only the doer of an unlawful act. It seems that most of Paul's writings dealt with this one point. A free and righteous man is invisible to the eyes of the law. Law presumes that the deeds and acts of free men are honorable and are not subject to scrutiny. The men who said that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause understood this precept, at least to a certain extent. They also understood that a free man can not be put under the jurisdiction of the law until he has been accused of a damage or
injury against his neighbor. They also understood that even then a free man had a right to be examined by a grand jury of free men before he may be turned over and tried as a transgressor under the law.
On the other hand legal is created by law and operates on or against the thing or the man (the man himself is regulated-he is a servant under law). And legal becomes binding by law through consent in some form or making application or petition to the state for a benefit or privilege in a manner (oath or penalty of perjury) that indicates one understands what he is doing and by so doing makes himself a bondservant of the gods of that jurisdiction.
Christ preached a kingdom. He established a government. The ecclesia were those called to minister to the people and teach them how to come together in congregations under the liberty of that government. They did it once before in Rome. Can it be done again. I see even their laws recognize that it can, but the gold most likely will be tested in the fire.
Clarence
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 16:15:01
Greetings and salutations brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Thank you for your kindness in taking care of that other matter, my friend.
Please know that I have a well-rounded understanding of the use of the semi-colon, and most other “tricky punctuations”, and have since late grammar school (if memory serves me correctly), and that I knew from the outset that there were two separate thoughts in the Black’s Law definition of taxpayer, the second one being, one from whom government demands a pecuniary contribution towards its support. [Emphasis added]
And, please know that I am familiar with what the word pecuniary means: 1. Relating to money; as pecuniary affairs or losses or, 2. Consisting of money; as a pecuniary mulct (fine) or penalty.
I fear we may be making a mountain out of a molehill here and are probably closer to agreeing than it may appear on the surface.
Use tax. A sales tax that is collectible by the seller where the purchaser is domiciled in a different state. A tax on the use, consumption, or storage of tangible property, usually at the same rate as the sales tax, and levied for the purpose of preventing tax avoidance by the purchase of articles in a state or taxing jurisdiction which does not levy sales taxes... - Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1073
The sales tax is merely a use tax as it pertains to strangers [entities domiciled in another jurisdiction] and does not create a permanent nexus (legal meaning) between the Stranger and the STATE, hence the Stranger does not become a subject of that STATE simply because he chose to pay a use tax, i.e. he is not a subject to STATE STATUTES in general, but rather only subjected to that one particular tax code, at that particular point in time. Can we agree on this one point?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 18 Aug 2005 : 05:19:38
quote:
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
I wanted to focus on this above statement now that I have a few minutes. The only "choosing" being done by the 'stranger' is whether or not to enter into COMMERCE with the VENDOR. Once the choice is made to enter into such a transaction, the stranger becomes a CONSUMER "in" the BUY/SELL RETAIL contract being struck between himself and the VENDOR. He assumes certain responsibilities for his part of the BUY/SELL transaction. The CONSUMER entering into a BUY/SELL agreement is indebted to the VENDOR. Firstly, the CONSUMER is indebted to the VENDOR for the price of the MERCHANDISE. The CONSUMER, if the offer by the VENDOR is accepted, is bound to pay the price of the MERCHANDISE. Concering that TAX obligation it is not “illegal” for the VENDOR to “eat it” because all that is happening, in reality, is the price of the MERCHANDISE is being discounted. It is not uncommon for the VENDOR to offer a discount which is the same percentage as the obligatory TAX that is to be ‘collected’ at point of SALE. The TAX is still being collected but this might only be reflected on the paper work between the STATE and the VENDOR who acts as an AGENT for the STATE. It is an established fact that the STATE can come after the CONSUMER if the VENDOR cheats the STATE and fails to ‘remit’ the CONSUMER TAX. Example from a Louisiana Revenue site.
"The vendor acts as an agent on behalf of the state in collecting the sales tax due. In the event the vendor does not collect the sales tax, the department may seek to collect the sales tax from the seller or the purchaser. This issue is addressed in the court case Collector of Revenue v. J. L. Richardson Company, (App. 4 Cir. 1971, 247 So.2d 151) and by the definition of dealer under LAC 61:I.4301."
Another example of the same idea is found here:
www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/ 2003/iac/701iac/70118/70118pp6.pdf
“…if the retailer fails to collect either tax, the consumer is obligated to pay a consumer use tax”.
Any way we slice it, entering into a BUYER/SELLER agreement with a VENDOR who is a licensed TAX COLLECTING AGENT for the STATE puts all parties in COMMERCE which is regulated by GOVT STATUTES.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 18:55:21
quote:
brother Robert said: We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it
Let's focus on "collect". Collect from who? The CONSUMER. If there is a tax to be "collected" then there is an obligation for the CONSUMER to pay it, unless a different deal can be negotiated. The VENDOR is licensed as an AGENT of the STATE to collect the TAX from the PURCHASER. This is well established. The CONSUMER who pays the TAX during the transaction between himself and the VENDOR would be a TAXPAYER as defined in Black's Law as well as the TAXPAYER definition in 26 U.S.C. §1313(b). . After the fact, once the TAX has been collected, then the VENDOR also is considered a TAXPAYER in that it must 'remit' what it collected. So we have two TAXPAYERS. Also, the definition of TAXPAYER in Black's Law, is not limited to the first clause in the definition which speaks of INCOME TAX. When the semi-colon exists in the sentence it separates two clauses. In actuality, two clauses in a sentence is like two separate sentences. The second part of the sentence, after the semi-colon can, stand on it's own. That's the tricky punctuation. There's the CONSUMER TAXPAYER, after the semi-colon. Understanding that, we have one definition of TAXPAYER in relation to INCOME TAX, then we have another definition that can be applied generally in the second clause. Having said that, I think it would be quite easy to see the party who performs the role of CONSUMER, during that COMMERCIAL transaction, as a PERSON once he accepts the BUY/SELL agreement which includes a TAX paid to the AGENT. If the man walks away and refuses to enter into the BUY/SELL agreement, then no deal was made, no TAX was paid, and the man did not assume the role as TAXPAYER or PERSON during that transction. If he accepts the terms, then the man becomes a CONSUMER, TAXPAYER, and PERSON for that particular transaction. He has become part of the 'TAX chain'.
Steve |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 08:47:38
quote:
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
I was thinking it would be good to clarify that same point. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 17 Aug 2005 : 08:39:45
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto you and yours.
We would like to ask one more favor of you…
[Originally posted by Batkol]
Yet, you have no problem enjoying the benefits of CONTRACTS as long as other's do it for you. So much for causing your "brother not to sin".
We would ask that either you take back, what we perceive to be a false accusation, or that you produce evidence that we have ever caused a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra’el to sin by asking them to enter into a contract on our behalf.
We might ask a citizen of a foreign nation we are sojourning in to lie to his or her 'elohiym/god (ruler) for us but surely you would not say that we caused him or her to sin against Yahuwah any more than you would say Joshua’s spies caused Rehab to sin against Yahuwah, would you? In fact, Rehab was rewarded by Yahuwah for lying to her 'elohiym/god’s agents for the sake of the Yisra’elites (fellowcitizens of Yisra’el). This is second witnessed in the New Covenant [Testament] when it says that those who help the fellowcitizens of Yisra’el will be rewarded.
We thank you for your time and attention to this matter, brother Steven.
Next!
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
Though you are correct, in the general sense, the Stranger to the covenant(s) who pays a tax, knowingly or unknowingly, is a taxpayer, it would be very dangerous for him to answer to this appellation, since it sounds exactly like the STATUTORILY created TAXPAYER, represented here as a fiction by its all-caps depiction. All who buy are buyers, but not all buyers are the legally created fictions called, BUYERS. Watch this from Black’s Law Dictionary – Abridged Sixth Edition, page 138.
Buyer. One who buys; (“tricky punctuation”) …a person who buys …
There are two kinds of buyers, one who buys refers to living beings, whereas a person who buys refers to statutorily created fictions.
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
semantics n.pl. 1 the branch of linguistics concerned with the nature, the structure, and the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning 3 the relationships between signs and symbols and the concepts, feelings, etc. associated with them in the minds of the their interpreters – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, page 1219
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act.
I have taken care of your request. I will respond the the rest of the post later when I have time to give it the time it deserves.
Peace to all!
Steve |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 16 Aug 2005 : 19:22:59
Greetings and salutations, brother Steven:
Peace be unto you and yours.
We would like to ask one more favor of you…
[Originally posted by Batkol]
Yet, you have no problem enjoying the benefits of CONTRACTS as long as other's do it for you. So much for causing your "brother not to sin".
We would ask that either you take back, what we perceive to be a false accusation, or that you produce evidence that we have ever caused a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra’el to sin by asking them to enter into a contract on our behalf.
We might ask a citizen of a foreign nation we are sojourning in to lie to his or her 'elohiym/god (ruler) for us but surely you would not say that we caused him or her to sin against Yahuwah any more than you would say Joshua’s spies caused Rehab to sin against Yahuwah, would you? In fact, Rehab was rewarded by Yahuwah for lying to her 'elohiym/god’s agents for the sake of the Yisra’elites (fellowcitizens of Yisra’el). This is second witnessed in the New Covenant [Testament] when it says that those who help the fellowcitizens of Yisra’el will be rewarded.
We thank you for your time and attention to this matter, brother Steven.
Next!
Perhaps we should take a closer look at the word obliged as opposed to choosing to pay a sales tax.
Owe, v.t. o. [Gr., Eng. own.] 1. To be indebted; to be obliged or bound to pay. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Obligated, pp. Bound by contract or promise. (Ibid.)
We perceive that a licensed SELLER, as opposed to a private seller, is obligated to collect and pay it, just as brother Clarence stated, while the buyer (Stranger) who is not indebted (grateful to the benefactor), and because he is a stranger to the contract or promise, is not obligated (bound) to pay it and may choose to walk away from the purchase or barter with the seller regarding its payment with no negative legal consequence, while the licensed SELLER may not legally choose not to add it to the price of his goods or legally refuse to pay it to the STATE because HE is bound by contract and promise. He may, as brother Clarence pointed out, choose to illegally “eat it” at the time of the sale, but presuming that he his not going to totally cheat his 'elohiym/god, the STATE, he will have to pay it himself because he is obligated, that is to say, bound by contract and promise, to do so.
Though you are correct, in the general sense, the Stranger to the covenant(s) who pays a tax, knowingly or unknowingly, is a taxpayer, it would be very dangerous for him to answer to this appellation, since it sounds exactly like the STATUTORILY created TAXPAYER, represented here as a fiction by its all-caps depiction. All who buy are buyers, but not all buyers are the legally created fictions called, BUYERS. Watch this from Black’s Law Dictionary – Abridged Sixth Edition, page 138.
Buyer. One who buys; (“tricky punctuation”) …a person who buys …
There are two kinds of buyers, one who buys refers to living beings, whereas a person who buys refers to statutorily created fictions.
To eliminate confusion, it might be better to write, all who pay taxes are tax payers (two words) or tax-payers (hyphenated) and label all the legally created fictions, TAXPAYERS in all caps. This may help to eliminate some confusion due to semantics.
semantics n.pl. 1 the branch of linguistics concerned with the nature, the structure, and the development and changes of the meanings of speech forms, or with contextual meaning 3 the relationships between signs and symbols and the concepts, feelings, etc. associated with them in the minds of the their interpreters – Webster’s 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition, page 1219
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 16 Aug 2005 : 12:19:48
quote:
Originally posted by David Merrill
Try applying for waiver the tax. After a bunch of items are rung up, refuse to pay the tax.
That would be a perfect soloution. Aside from the FRN issue, it would be a great way of avoiding becoming a TAXPAYER in the transaction.
|
| David Merrill |
Posted - 16 Aug 2005 : 10:30:03
Try applying for waiver the tax. After a bunch of items are rung up, refuse to pay the tax. |
|
|
